Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Conviction upheld for buzzard-killing gamekeeper from Newlands Estate

In April 2016 we blogged about a Scottish gamekeeper who was appealing his conviction for killing a buzzard (here).

In August 2015, gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick, now 26, was found guilty of killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire, in April 2014. Two witnesses had observed him striking the buzzard with rocks and then repeatedly stamping on it (see here). In September 2015 he was sentenced: £1,500 fine for killing the buzzard and £500 for possession of the dead buzzard (see here).

Mr Dick had maintained his innocence throughout the trial and had claimed he was elsewhere when the offence took place (see here).

Mr Dick’s appeal was heard in May (here) and we’ve been waiting for the written judgement from that hearing. Yesterday, that written judgement was published and Mr Dick’s appeal was thrown out.

The judgement itself is well worth a read (see here) as it explains not only the evidence used to convict Mr Dick, but also the grounds for his appeal, which basically centred on what time Mr Dick and his line manager (Head Gamekeeper) had left a BASC training course in Dunkeld. Mr Dick has always argued he couldn’t have been the person observed killing the buzzard because he was still travelling back to Newlands Estate from Dunkeld at the time the observation was made. The Sheriff in the original trial had preferred the testimony of the two witnesses (tenants on Newlands Estate who knew gamekeeper Mr Dick) to the testimony of Mr Dick and his Head Gamekeeper.

You might think that 21st Century technology could easily have resolved this issue. For example, did the vehicle in which Mr Dick and his Head Gamekeeeper were travelling not pass any Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras enroute from Dunkeld to Newlands Estate? Surely that would have provided conclusive evidence about the timing of their journey? Apparently not.

Mr Dick’s appeal was heard by three senior judges: Lord Carloway (Lord Justice General), Lord Menzies, and Lord Bracadale. In the written judgement, each of these three judges state their individual opinion about the case and explain the reasoning behind their decisions. Two of the judges (Carloway and Bracadale) considered that the appeal should be refused. The other judge, Menzies, considered that there were sufficient grounds for appeal. [Interesting to note, according to Wikipedia, Lord Menzies’ interests include shooting]. The appeal was rejected 2:1 against.

This is a rare success and the SSPCA, Police Scotland, and Crown Office deserve credit for their efforts. Special credit to the two witnesses who risked a lot to bring this criminal to justice.

As Mr Dick’s criminal conviction has now been upheld, presumably this will now allow the prosecution to proceed against Andrew Duncan, the Newlands Estate landowner, for alleged vicarious liability of Mr Dick’s crimes. The case against Mr Duncan has been repeatedly delayed (see here) while Mr Dick’s appeal was underway.

Mr Dick’s failed appeal also leads us back to several questions we asked at the time of his conviction in August 2015. These were:

  1. Is/was criminal gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association? The SGA refused to comment on Mr Dick’s membership status at the time, saying they ‘wanted to wait until the legal process had concluded’. Well, now Mr Dick’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk
  2. Will Scottish Land & Estates now expel the Newlands Estate from the ranks of SLE membership? SLE said at the time that Newlands Estate’s membership of SLE had been ‘voluntarily suspended’ pending on-going legal proceedings. Well, now the gamekeeper’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk
  3. Will the Newlands Estate’s accredited membership of Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES) now be revoked? The conditions of membership of this scheme include: “the requirements to maintain best practice standards of animal welfare and comply with all legal requirements and relevant Scottish codes of practice”. At the time of Mr Dick’s conviction, a spokesperson for WES said the Newlands Estate’s membership and accreditation of WES had been ‘voluntary suspended’ pending the outcome of legal proceedings. Well, now the gamekeeper’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk

We’ll also be watching closely to see whether the Newlands Estate will now be subject to a General Licence Restriction from SNH. If you recall, this restriction may be imposed by SNH where evidence of raptor crime is apparent and it has been available as a sanction for offences committed since 1 January 2014. Mr Dick killed the buzzard on Newlands Estate in April 2014. Although, even if the GL restriction is put in place, the estate can easily side-step it by applying for an ‘individual’ licence instead (e.g. see here).

Had there been a gamebird licensing scheme in place, the Newlands Estate could now have been facing a temporary ban on pheasant shooting for a number of months/years. At the moment, no such licensing scheme exists, but a petition has recently been launched by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, asking the Scottish Government to introduce such a licensing scheme. You can sign the petition HERE

Case against gamekeeper Stanley Gordon re: shot hen harrier, part 3

Criminal proceedings continued at Elgin Sheriff Court yesterday against Scottish gamekeeper Stanley Gordon.

Mr Gordon, 60, of Cabrach, Moray, is facing charges in connection with the alleged shooting of a hen harrier in June 2013.

The case continued without plea and the next hearing will be 11 August 2016.

Previous blogs on this case here and here

 

 

Grouse-shooting industry further enraged by Chris Packham video

When we said the other day (here) that the grouse-shooting industry was seriously rattled by Chris Packham’s video about Marks and Spencer’s decision to sell red grouse, we underestimated their fury.

Here’s the video again, in case you haven’t seen it:

Yesterday, four organisations (BASC, Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association and the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation) united in their efforts to silence Chris by publishing a joint statement calling for the BBC to ‘rein in Packham’.

It’s quite an entertaining statement, full of faux outrage about a perceived breach of BBC impartiality, even though they acknowledge that Chris’s video is a “non-BBC video” and that Chris is “not always directly employed by the BBC“. According to one of the furious complainers (Charles Nodder of the NGO), any public comments made by Chris “are indivisible from the BBC“. Eh? Mr Nodder clearly doesn’t have a very high opinion of the general public if he thinks we can’t distinguish between a personal view of a part-time presenter and that of the BBC!

Calling on the BBC to ‘rein him in’ and demanding that the corporation ‘withdraws support’ for Chris’s supposed “extremist propaganda” is basically a call for the BBC to sack Chris. Haven’t we been here before?

Let’s just be clear. This is less to do with the grouse-shooting industry’s concerns about BBC impartiality but more to do with them wanting to silence an articulate, thoughtful, well-informed and popular ‘celebrity’ to prevent him expressing views on the disgraceful and damaging aspects of driven grouse shooting. These views are obviously the polar opposite of those held by the grouse-shooting industry and thus are labelled by them as ‘extreme’. Gosh, there are a lot of ‘extremists’ in the UK at the moment – over 56,000 so far!

The BBC has responded by issuing the following statement:

“Chris Packham is a naturalist in his own right and is not solely employed by the BBC. If Chris Packham wishes to express his personal views outside of his employment on BBC natural history programmes, he is entitled to do so.”

Meanwhile, the grouse-shooting industry’s futile attempts to stick the knife into Chris may well have backfired. Their efforts have been picked up by at least two national newspapers (Telegraph – here; Daily Mail – here), thus giving far more exposure to Chris’s video and the ban driven grouse shooting campaign than we could hope to reach. So cheers to them for that!

In the Telegraph article, it emerges that Iceland Foods stores are not planning to sell red grouse this year. Perhaps they’ve realised that selling meat that contains lead levels 100 times higher than those allowed in other meats isn’t that good for their customers’ health, or for business. Well done to them. Iceland 1: Marks and Spencer 0.

Meanwhile, M&S continues its plan to sell red grouse this year, ignoring the facts that shot red grouse sourced from some driven grouse moors are unhealthy, unnatural and unethical. They may contain:

  • Excessive amounts of toxic poisonous lead (over 100 times the lead levels that would be legal for other meat – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Flubendazole (see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Levamisole hydrochloride (also used in chemotherapy treatment for humans with colon cancer – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the pesticide Permethrin (used topically to treat scabies and pubic lice; probably not that great to ingest – see here)
  • They may also be infected with the disease Cryptosporidiosis (see here).

It is up to M&S to demonstrate that their red grouse have been ethically sourced from an estate where raptors are not illegally poisoned, trapped or shot, and that their red grouse have been rigorously tested for the above chemicals. So far, they’ve refused to do this, and their friends in the grouse-shooting industry don’t seem to be encouraging them to be open and transparent either. Can’t think why.

If you’d like to encourage M&S to be open and transparent about its policy to sell red grouse this year, please consider sending an email to Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne, the man in charge of M&S’s ‘Plan A’ (basically its policy on ethical product sourcing). You might want to ask him the name of the estate from which M&S is sourcing its red grouse, how M&S has ensured that this estate is run ethically, legally and sustainably, and what tests M&S will conduct to ensure the red grouse for sale on its shelves do not contain high levels of toxic lead and other chemicals and pesticides as listed above. Email Patrick at: patrick.bousquet-chavanne@marks-and-spencer.com

You might also want to join Chris Packham and 56,000+ people who have already signed the petition to ban driven grouse shooting – HERE.

CP2

Grouse-shooting industry seriously rattled by Chris Packham video

Two days ago, Chris Packham sent a video message to Marks & Spencer about their decision to sell red grouse in their stores this year. If you missed it, here it is again:

Some from within the grouse-shooting community have responded, and they are rattled. Seriously rattled. We’ve read hundreds of messages on social media, almost entirely full of vile, vitriolic, personal abuse, aimed directly at Chris as well as at fellow campaigner Mark Avery.

Today, BASC has issued a public statement about the video – see here. We’ve reproduced it here in case it ‘disappears’:

BASC backs M&S to beat the bullies

BASC is urging Marks & Spencer not to buckle to celebrity bullying after Chris Packham launched a social media campaign calling on the retailer to stop selling red grouse in its stores.

Packham, a regular presenter for the BBC, has appeared in a YouTube video ahead of the retailer’s AGM this week in which he labels shot grouse as ‘toxic’ and urges viewers to lobby the retailer to abandon the sale of grouse. Packham is promoting the video on his official Twitter account.

M&S has previously said they would continue to stock grouse providing it could be sourced ‘to the highest standards of game and moorland management’.

BASC believes the retailer’s stance is consistent with the association’s own aim of promoting ethical shooting on grouse moors effectively managed for conservation and long-term sustainability.

Duncan Thomas, BASC’s northern director, said: “For Packham to condemn grouse as ‘toxic’ can only be either naïve on his part or deliberately inflammatory. Grouse, when properly prepared for the table, is a healthy, tasty and popular game meat. That’s the reason reputable retailers like M&S put it on their shelves.

“There is always an onslaught from antis in the run up to the ‘Glorious Twelfth’, so we should expect nothing less from the likes of Packham. He abuses his position as a presenter with the BBC to promote an ill-informed, anti-shooting agenda and to support failing petitions.”

BASC chairman Peter Glenser said: “We applaud M&S for standing strong against this cynical, celebrity bullying. Grouse is an ethical food source. As a major presence on the high-street, I’m sure M&S will continue to prefer substance over propaganda.

“Contrary to the claims of the antis, grouse shooting has been proven to have an economic value of around £100 million per year and supports the equivalent of more than 2,500 full-time jobs. And grouse moors support a vast range of wildlife, not just grouse. This is absolutely down to the efforts of gamekeepers and farmers.”

BASC has published an interactive infographic on the benefits of grouse shooting, which shows that up to five times more threatened wading birds are supported on land managed for grouse shooting and 75 per cent of the world’s ecologically sensitive heather moorland is found in the UK because of grouse moor management.

END

It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that they decide to label Chris as a ‘celebrity bully’ just for asking legitimate, reasonable questions of Marks & Spencer, but say nothing when ‘celeb’ Ian Botham spews unsubstantiated abuse at the RSPB? And isn’t this the same industry that petitioned for the BBC to sack Chris for speaking out about wildlife crime (a move that spectacularly backfired when a counter-petition reached over 80,000 signatures in support of him – see here) – what was that if it wasn’t bullying?

And how, exactly, can politely asking legitimate, reasonable questions of Marks & Spencer’s ethics, be construed as bullying? M&S, quite rightly, takes great pride in its ethics, claiming to have a strong policy on food sourcing, including a ‘named farmer’ scheme and a farm assurance scheme ‘which guarantees high quality food production’ (see here) and high specifications for animal welfare (see here). So when they suddenly become all coy about the details of their supposed ‘industry-leading Code of Practice for game meat’ (here), and refuse to name the estate from which they’re sourcing their grouse, naturally questions are going to be asked. Especially when M&S infers (here) that this ‘industry-leading Code of Practice’ is supported by the RSPB, when actually, it isn’t at all – the RSPB hasn’t even seen it (see here)!

Shot red grouse, sourced from most driven grouse moors, are generally unhealthy, unnatural, and unsustainable (see here). They may contain:

  • Excessive amounts of toxic poisonous lead (over 100 times the lead levels that would be legal for other meat – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Flubendazole (see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Levamisole hydrochloride (also used in chemotherapy treatment for humans with colon cancer – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the pesticide Permethrin (used topically to treat scabies and pubic lice; probably not that great to ingest – see here)
  • They may also be infected with the disease Cryptosporidiosis (see here).

Now, if M&S can demonstrate that their red grouse have been sourced from a sustainably-managed grouse moor, whose gamekeepers aren’t involved in illegal wildlife persecution or indeed in excessive levels of ‘legal’ persecution, and that they subject their grouse to rigorous testing for the all above chemicals and poisons, then no worries, we’d have no complaints. But so far, M&S has refused to answer any specific questions and won’t even name the source estate. What are they hiding?

And why is the grouse-shooting industry pointing its guns at Chris? Why shoot the messenger? Surely, if they believe that red grouse is healthy, natural and sustainable, they’d be encouraging M&S to be open and transparent about (a) the origin of their grouse and (b) the tests & checks they’ve undertaken to ensure the grouse meet M&S’s usual high standards?

Are they so rattled because they know they can’t provide answers to these questions? Probably, and also because they know that Chris is held in high-regard by the general public as a man of principle, integrity and decency, and so people are more likely to pay attention to his views than those of abusive, foul-mouthed social media trolls.

If you share Chris Packham’s views, and appreciate his willingness to stand up and speak out against the raptor killers, and object to his vilification by the grouse-shooting industry, please sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE. That’s the e-petition that BASC’s Duncan Thomas describes as “failing”. Hmm, 55,000+ signatures so far and rising all the time.

UPDATE 14 July 2016: Grouse-shooting industry further enraged by Chris Packham video here

CP1

Petition launched to licence gamebird hunting in Scotland

SRSG logo2A new petition has just been launched calling for the Scottish Government to introduce a State-regulated licensing scheme for all gamebird hunting in Scotland.

The petition has been lodged by the Scottish Raptor Study Group and already has the backing of RSPB Scotland (see here) and the Scottish Wildlife Trust (see here).

Background information about the petition may be read here.

Information about previous action that has been taken to address this issue may be read here.

The petition itself may be read here.

To sign this petition, please go here.

This isn’t the first time the Scottish Raptor Study Group has called for licensing. In 2014, they, with support from RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, called for grouse-shooting licences to be introduced (see here); a request that was rejected by the then Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse (see here). That request was an informal one, put to the Minister in a letter. This time they’ve gone for a more formal approach and they need your support.

There is really no need to explain here why the regulation of gamebird hunting is long overdue. If you’re in any doubt whatsoever, just spend a few minutes looking through some of our blog posts and also have a look at the background information links above. The gamebird-shooting industry in the UK is the least-regulated in comparison with other European countries and, arguably, is responsible for more environmental destruction than any of its European counterparts. The UK shooting industry has had decades to get its act together and self-regulate, but has failed, comprehensively, and so enforced regulation is inevitable.

What’s interesting about this petition though, is how it differs from Mark Avery’s petition to ban driven grouse shooting (which so far has attracted over 55,000 signatures – see here).

The most obvious difference is that this new Scottish petition is calling for licensing rather than for a ban, and it is directed at ALL types of gamebird hunting in Scotland (e.g. grouse, pheasant, partridge) rather than just driven grouse shooting.

Some may argue that the licensing approach is futile, mainly due to enforcement issues, and we’d have to agree with that to some extent. Scotland already has some of the strongest wildlife protection legislation in Europe but enforcement problems continue to be of concern. Nevertheless, this new petition is still worthy of your support, and importantly, there’s nothing to stop you signing both petitions!

It seems the licensing approach in Scotland is considered to have more chance of acceptance by the Scottish Government than calling for an outright ban, largely due to the fact that the Scottish Government is, in relative terms, much more progressive and further down the road on this issue than the Westminster Government. This call for licensing is in line with the Scottish Government’s previously stated approach to the illegal persecution of raptors; they’ve been saying for years now that they are prepared to take further action if the persecution doesn’t stop, so this petition could nudge them in the direction they’re already travelling, because, despite the gamebird shooting industry’s claims to the contrary, the persecution has not stopped (see here).

It could be argued that licensing is just delaying the inevitable, in that if it fails to act as an effective deterrent, a ban must surely be on the cards, but we’d have to wait 10+ (?) years to get to that position because the Scottish Government will insist, quite rightly, that the licensing approach will need time before its success or failure can be measured. It does seem highly unlikely that the Scottish Government will support calls for a ban until all other options have been tried, so the licensing approach seems to be a necessary hurdle to be jumped, but if it does turn out to be effective then that’d be good, obviously.

If the Scottish Government does decide to accept a call for licensing, the next question will be, ‘What will that licensing look like?’. Who knows, and that’d be for the Scottish Government to decide in due course, but it might include restrictions on the intensification of land managed for gamebird shooting (i.e. restrictions on muirburn, restrictions on drainage, restrictions on medication) as well as new reporting requirements (i.e. How many gamebirds shot? How many predators legally killed? How many mountain hares killed?) etc. Crucially, whatever regime is introduced, it must be independently monitored if the public is to have any confidence in it.

But that’s for later discussion. At this stage, the most important thing is to apply pressure on the Scottish Government to accept that gamebird hunting in Scotland cannot continue in its current unregulated form. Whether you think a licensing scheme will work or not isn’t that important right now; the Scottish Government needs to hear from you that this issue is important to you and that you want to stimulate a discussion about it.

The Scottish Government’s petition system works differently to the Westminster system. For Mark’s ‘ban driven grouse shooting’ e-petition, the Westminster Government requires 100,000 signatures within a six-month period before it will even consider holding a Parliamentary debate, and even then that’s not a given. In Scotland, petitions are only live for six weeks but all petitions to the Scottish Government are considered equally by the Scottish Petitions Committee, regardless of how many signatures have been registered. The Petitions Committee will automatically submit the petition for consideration to the most relevant Parliamentary Committee, in this case the Environment Committee, who will discuss and put forward their recommendations based on their findings. Please note: the Scottish petition may be signed by anybody, anywhere in the world, whereas the Westminster petitions are restricted to UK citizens/residents only.

The Scottish petition will close on 22 August 2016. We’d encourage you to sign the petition (here), not only to support the views of the Scottish Raptor Study Group, but also to let the Scottish Government know that this issue is important and deserves Parliamentary time and attention.

As mentioned above, you don’t have to restrict yourself to signing one or other of the two petitions. What happens to raptors in Scotland is of equal significance to what happens to raptors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Many raptor species physically cross country borders, particularly as juveniles, and at the moment they are just as likely to be illegally killed in certain parts of Scotland as they are in certain parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For this reason, we’d also encourage you to sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting (here), which closes on 20 September 2016.

Thank you.

Chris Packham has a message for Marks & Spencer

Following the news earlier this week (here) that Marks & Spencer is planning to sell red grouse in its stores this year, Chris Packham has a message for them:

Please sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

Watch out for more videos about driven grouse shooting…..to be released over the next couple of weeks.

UPDATE 12 July 2016: Grouse-shooting industry seriously rattled by Chris Packham video (see here).

Upland raptor conference, Sheffield, September 2016

Raptor conference poster

This looks like it’ll be fun.

The programme includes some interesting speakers with equally ‘interesting’ presentation titles. We’re particularly looking forward to:

Stephen Murphy (Natural England): Hen Harrier Population Dynamics. Stephen has been given a 30 minute slot to explain that when hen harriers are illegally killed on grouse moors, their population disintegrates to virtual breeding extinction.

Adrian Jowitt (Natural England): DEFRA’s 2016 Hen Harrier Plan. Adrian has been given a 25 minute slot to explain the actual details of this non-plan. Quite a tall order.

Philip Merricks (Hawk & Owl Trust): The Hawk & Owl Trust’s Involvement in the Hen Harrier Recovery Action Plan. Perhaps Philip will use his slot to explain why the H&OT is still involved in the outrageous brood meddling scheme, even though one of their supposed “immoveable provisos” was breached this spring (see here).

Rhodri Thomas (Peak District National Park Authority): The Peak District’s Raptors Project – Conservation in Action. It looks like the person writing the programme has inserted an erroneous space in Rhodri’s presentation title; surely it should read Conservation Inaction, because the Peak District’s Birds of Prey Initiative has failed to meet every target set (see here) and has been totally silent on recent, local, high profile raptor persecution crimes (e.g. see here and here).

Tim (Kim) Baynes (Scottish Land & Estates): Scottish Initiatives. Those Scottish ‘initiatives’ will no doubt include repeated attempts to discredit the scientific data showing the extent of raptor persecution on driven grouse moors (here), repeated denials that raptor persecution is a big problem on grouse moors in Scotland (here), and fronting a propaganda campaign about the ‘benefits’ of driven grouse shooting (here).

Fortunately, there are others speakers lined up to cut through the spin, including Mark Avery, Pat Thompson, and Alan Fielding.

The conference is open to the public so if you have the slightest interest in raptor persecution in the British uplands, this would be a good one to attend.

The conference programme can be downloaded here:

 raptors___uplands_conference_programme_sept._2016

You can register for the conference online here.

See you there!

It’ll be interesting to see how many people will have signed the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting by then. It’ll be ten days away from its closing date. 53,000+ people have signed so far. If you’re not one of them, PLEASE SIGN HERE

North Yorkshire Police admit they should have charged pole-trapping gamekeeper

On 1 June 2016 we blogged about the Mossdale Estate gamekeeper who had been caught on film setting illegal pole traps on a grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park (here).

Mossdale pole trap May 2016

Also on 1 June 2016, we blogged about North Yorkshire Police’s decision to issue this criminal with a caution rather than refer him to the Crown Prosecution Service to begin a formal prosecution. We argued that, according to the official Police ‘cautions’ guidelines, the decision to caution in this case was apparently flawed. The offences, to which the gamekeeper had already admitted guilt, backed up by excellent video evidence obtained by the RSPB’s Investigations Team, were of such gravity and included all five aggravating factors (and no mitigating factors) as listed in the Police guidelines, that this was a clear case for proceeding to charges and a prosecution. Following a bombardment of complaints from blog readers (thank you all), Amanda Oliver, Acting Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, promised a review of the decision not to charge this criminal gamekeeper (see here).

Today, Amanda Oliver has published the findings of that review:

You wrote to us recently to complain about our decision to caution a man, after he admitted an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

North Yorkshire Police has now completed a review of this investigation. This involved looking again at the evidence and the decision, using the Ministry of Justice Guidelines on Adult Cautions, the Adult Gravity Factor Matrix, and the latest Director of Public Prosecutions Guidance on Charging. Specialist advice was also sought from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Our review found that we had not used the correct cautioning guidelines when dealing with this case. Police officers have a level of discretion in deciding how to deal with a case, based on the specific circumstances of the incident. However, the review concluded that if the correct guidelines had been used, it is likely that the man would have been charged, rather than cautioned.

It is important to remember that a police caution is not a “let off”. A person who has been cautioned has a criminal record, and there can be very serious consequences as a result.  Depending on the circumstances, they may lose their job and income, and there may also be implications for the person’s future employment. A decision was also made to revoke this man’s firearms licence as a result of his involvement in this offence.

As a result of the review, we asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether further action should be taken on this case, and provided them with other details of our activity related to the man involved. After consideration, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that, taking all matters into account, including that a decision had already been made, no further action should be taken. 

I would like to reassure you that the mistake we made on the use of guidelines was isolated to this particular case. Nonetheless, we have taken the matter very seriously, and we have ensured we have done everything we can to avoid mistakes happening in the future. We have amended our policy on how wildlife crimes are dealt with by investigators and decision-makers, and advice from specially-trained officers is now sought in every case. We are also using our position as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on rural and wildlife crime, to share what we have learned with other police services across the UK.

Thank you for raising this matter with us. On behalf of North Yorkshire Police I would like to apologise for the distress that this matter has caused you, and assure you that we will do our very best to protect our local wildlife, and deliver the police national wildlife action plan here in North Yorkshire and more widely.

Yours sincerely

Amanda Oliver

Acting Assistant Chief Constable

END

We very much appreciate Amanda Oliver’s decision to conduct this review and publicise the findings. This level of accountability, honesty and transparency is, in our experience, extremely rare but it is vital if the public is to have any confidence in the way the Police handle wildlife crimes. We applaud North Yorkshire Police for not trying to cover up their mistakes.

On to the actual review itself, Amanda says the usage of incorrect charging guidelines was isolated to this particular case. We’re not so sure about that. In 2015, we blogged about the discovery of five illegally set pole traps at a gamebird-breeding facility in North Yorkshire. The police charged the owner of that facility and he was found guilty of permitting the use of one pole trap, although this conviction was later quashed. But the Police failed to charge two employees with setting those five illegal traps and instead they were both given a caution (see here). Did North Yorkshire Police use the incorrect guidelines when they decided to caution those two employees? We’ll never know.

Amanda suggests that in the case of the Mossdale Estate gamekeeper, a police caution is “not a let off”. Sorry, but that’s nonsense, and we share Mark Avery’s views (here) on why it absolutely is a let off. It’s particularly frustrating in this case because, as you all know, raptor persecution on grouse moors is prolific and yet there are relatively few convictions. Why? Because it takes an extraordinary set of circumstances to have first-rate evidence AND an admission of guilt from the gamekeeper. This particular case was handed to the Police on a plate, thanks to the superb efforts of the RSPB’s Investigations Team. It should have been an easy ‘win’ that ended in a successful prosecution. That opportunity was missed in this case, and that’s unfortunate. However, we do applaud the Police’s decision to revoke this gamekeeper’s firearms certificate and we hope other Police forces take note of that decision.

It’s also unfortunate that the CPS has taken the decision not to take any further action against this criminal gamekeeper but without knowing the full details of the case it’s difficult to assess the validity of that decision.

We’re pleased and encouraged to hear that North Yorkshire Police has now amended its policy on how it tackles wildlife crimes. Given this region’s well-deserved reputation for being a raptor persecution hell hole, it probably won’t be long before we get to see just how well this new policy is working. The next case won’t be far away.

No subsidy withdrawal for mass poisoning of raptors on Glanusk Estate

Further to the news about the mass poisoning of raptors uncovered on the Glanusk Estate in the Brecon Beacons National Park, Wales (see here), we wanted to find out whether the Estate had incurred a financial penalty for what appears to be a clear breach of cross compliance rules.

In order to qualify for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidy payments, claimants are required to keep their land in ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition’ and comply with a set of Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs). This is known as cross compliance. [NB: the rules have now changed slightly but as this mass poisoning took place in 2012/2013, the old rules apply].

In our opinion, the illegal poisoning of raptors with Bendiocarb is a breach of SMR1 (relating to the protection of wild birds) and SMR9 (relating to restrictions on the use of plant protection products).

DSCN0334.JPG-550x0

In April, an FoI was submitted to Rural Payments Wales (RPW), the Government agency responsible for implementing CAP subsidy payments and for imposing penalties if cross compliance regulations have been breached. Here are the questions that were asked, along with the answers received from RPW:

Question 1. Which of these incidents were on land in receipt of subsidies under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) during the years 2012 and 2013?

Answer: I can confirm that 10 of these incidents were on land in receipt of SPS in 2012 and 2013.

[RPUK comment: Although there were 24 incidents in total, it seems that RPW has excluded 14 of them, presumably because the illegally-poisoned birds and/or illegally-placed poisoned baits were on land that is not subject to SPS, for example, in woodland].

Question 2. What were the amounts of payments made under SPS in 2012 and 2013 and to how many beneficiaries?

Answer: A total of £98,802.01 was paid to 2 beneficiaries under SPS 2012. A total of £97,145.70 was paid to 2 beneficiaries under SPS 2013.

[RPUK comment: We’ve scrutinised the CAP payments website to find out who these beneficiaries were and we’ve worked out that they are two tenant farmers on the Glanusk Estate, presumably on whose landholdings the poisoned birds/baits were discovered].

Question 3. Can Rural Payments Wales confirm whether these offences would have breached SMR1 and SMR9 of the SPS?

Answer: These offences would be a breach of SMR1 and SMR9 if they were found to be attributable to a benficiary of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds.

Question 4. What investigation or enforcement action has Rural Payments Wales undertaken in relation to these offences?

Answer: RPW considered the offences in question and concluded there was insufficient evidence to apply a cross compliance breach to a beneficiary.

[RPUK comment: We’re fascinated by this. The standard of proof for a cross compliance breach is lower than the standard of proof required for a criminal prosecution. A criminal conviction is NOT required for a cross compliance penalty to be imposed].

Question 5. What subsidy withdrawals have been made from anyone in receipt of money under the SPS in 2012 and 2013 as a result of these incidents?

Answer: No withdrawal of subsidy has been made from anyone under SPS 2012 and SPS 2013 as a result of these incidents.

END

A further FoI was submitted to RPW in May 2016, to try and understand why RPW thought there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to apply a penalty. Here are the questions that were asked, along with the answers received from RPW:

Question 6. Please can you tell me the date (day/month/year) that RPW first became aware of these poisoning incidents?

Answer: RPW first became aware of the poisoning incidents on 5 December 2013.

Question 7. Please could you provide information about the extent and type of enquiries RPW conducted when “considering the offences in question and concluding there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a cross compliance action”?

Answer: A formal police investigation was underway in this case and RPW undertook a review of the documentary evidence.

Question 8. Have the two claimaints been informed by RPW of the SMR1 and SMR9 breaches on their land?

Answer: No, RPW has not established any breaches to SMR1 and SMR9 on their land.

Question 9. Have the two claimants been interviewed by RPW about the incidents on their land?

Answer: No.

Question 10. Can copies of any correspondence between RPW and the claimants about these incidents be supplied (with personal details redacted)?

Answer: RPW has had no contact with the claimants over these incidents.

Question 11. What steps has RPW taken to prevent a reoccurence of these breaches?

Answer: RPW undertakes a programme of annual on site visits to farm businesses to ensure cross compliance requirements are respected.

END

To be honest, we’re completed baffled by RPW’s answers to questions 8-11. They’re either displaying overwhelming apathy, or they’re confused, or we’re confused. Confusion and apathy shouldn’t be unexpected – we saw a similar approach from the Rural Payments Agency (operating in England) when we challenged them about a subsidy withdrawal for the Stody Estate (Norfolk) after the discovery of mass raptor poisoning on their land. The confusion and apathy continued for a year, but, to their credit, the RPA did eventually get it right and imposed a large financial penalty on Stody Estate (see previous blogs here).

Are we going to have to go through the same process with Rural Payments Wales?

Was there a cross compliance breach or wasn’t there? If there was, why hasn’t a penalty been imposed? Why hasn’t RPW bothered to discuss these poisonings with the subsidy recipients? How can RPW claim, with straight faces, that their on site visits “ensure cross compliance requirements are respected”? If that’s the case, where was RPW in 2012 and 2013?

Emails to: RPWOnline@wales.gsi.gov.uk

There’s something decidedly rotten about this whole affair. The most significant wildlife poisoning incident ever uncovered in Wales, and the second largest in the UK in 40 years, on a prominent estate with strong royal connections, inside a National Park. Abject secrecy about these crimes from Dyfed Powys Police (until we started asking questions 3 years later), no criminal prosecution, and no subsidy penalty.

Further statement from Glanusk Estate re: mass raptor poisoning

Following on from yesterday’s blog about the Glanusk Estate statement on the illegal mass poisoning of raptors on their land (here), the Glanusk Estate trustees have issued a further statement:

Further Glanusk statement

A couple of things jumped out at us:

“The incident involves a third party to Glanusk Estate and is nothing to do with the Management Team or the owners of the Estate“.

Clearly, the owners and Management Team were not directly responsible for setting out poisoned baits, or for picking up poisoned raptors and hiding them inside feed sacks next to a pheasant pen. That was the criminal action of a ‘third party’. But it’s irresponsible for the Management Team and owners of the Estate to claim ‘it is nothing to do with us’. It’s their responsibility, and theirs alone, to, er, ‘manage’ what happens on their Estate.

The question is, do the owners and Management Team know who that ‘third party’ was and if so, what action have they taken against that ‘third party’? Is the ‘third party’ still involved at Glanusk Estate? What measures, if any, have Glanusk Estate put in place to ensure the poisoning is not repeated? They say they have asked their visitors, tenants and friends to be vigilant, but is that enough? This mass poisoning took place over the period of a whole year and apparently nobody saw anything suspicious (!) so asking people to be vigilant is a start but hopefully it isn’t the Management Team’s only course of action!

“The Welsh Government and the Dyfed Powys Police confirmed at the time that there was no risk to public health“.

Really? If that’s true, it would be an extraordinary statement for the Welsh Government & Dyfed Powys Police to make. According to the World Health Organisation, Bendiocarb (the poison that was used for these mass raptor killings) is listed as Class II for acute toxicity, indicating that it is moderately hazardous to humans if ingested or absorbed through the skin. Symptoms of Bendiocarb poisoning in humans are weakness, blurred vision, headache, nausea, abdominal cramps, low blood pressure, muscle tremours, uncoordination and heart irregularities. Death can result from discontinued breathing, paralysis of muscles of the respiratory system and/or intense constriction of the openings of the lungs. But don’t worry, the Welsh Government and Dyfed Powys Police said there was “no risk to public health”.

We’ll be blogging more about the Welsh Government’s role in this case shortly…..